Balancing the budget is a “social agenda”?

Rep. Diana DeGette was quoted as saying, “I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will choose to turn their attention to the critical task of getting Americans back to work, rather than advancing an extreme social agenda.” When is trying to balance the federal budget an extreme social agenda, and especially when an extreme left-winger says it?

Alan Corporon, Littleton

This letter was published in the April 12 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

I think I fall somewhere between DeGette and Alan. Everything in the Budget is part of a social agenda, but it isn’t just the Republicans who are pushing an extreme social agenda. The Democrats fought tooth and nail to continuing funding NPR and Planned Parenthood. Now in an age of 1.5 trillion dollar deficits, cutting these are no brainers unless you have an extreme social agenda that includes funding abortion and paying part of the freight for a liberal upper middle class media outlet and you are willing to shut down the government to preserve it. In fact, the Republicans traded those issues for a bigger cut in the budget. This is kind of like Solomon proposing to cut the baby in half. It was the Republicans who gave up their “extreme agenda” item for bigger cuts. It was the Democrats who wouldn’t.

Anonymous

It’s true that a lot of items in the budget have social implications, but the Planned Parenthood rider had little to do with the budget, and the GOP knew from the outset that the Democrats would never accept it. A total of $400 million was involved, but only 3% of Plant Parenthood’s expenses go to funding abortions. In other words, the GOP was willing to shut down the government for the sake of $12 million. That seems pretty extreme to me. Gov. Walker insisted on stripping the public employees of collective bargaining rights, even after they agreed to all the financial concessions, and in spite of the mass demonstrations were going on. The GOP insisted on extending the tax cuts for the wealthy at the cost of $100 billion per year, which shows that they weren’t very concerned with the deficit either. Would you like some more examples?

Anonymous

You can only have a fight over an ideological position if both sides have an ideological position.

Ideological intransigence

IN THE END, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA WAS THE ONE WHO REFUSED TO BLINK ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Another way of saying it is this: THE PRESIDENT WAS WILLING TO SHUT DOWN THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN SEE PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S FEDERAL FUNDING CUT.

According to press accounts leaked by Democratic aides, House Speaker John Boehner argued for the funding cut late into the evening. THE PRESIDENT ANSWERED, “NOPE, ZERO.” He then said, “John, this is it.” Mr. Boehner accepted the budget deal without that cut
.
A Republican aide confirmed more or less the same account to me. He said it was “chilling” to see how inflexible Mr. Obama was. You might call it ideological.

As for your comments about Planned Parenthood and the 3%; it is not the expenses that are 3%, but they claim only 3% of their services are abortion. In fact 36.7% of their income comes from abortions. You can read about it below. And it was Obama that was willing to shut down the government over it, obviously not the Republicans.

BTW, Iris, the tax cuts to the “wealthy” involved $700 billion over 10 years or $70 billion per year, not $100 billion. And Walker was correct to remove collective bargaining about benefits since that is where the real problem is with public employee unions and it is up to the states whether or not to allow collective bargaining. It wasn’t extreme at all.

Anonymous

Sorry about that, the true number is $ 70 billion, but that doesn’t change the basic nature of the situation. I don’t think that either side is being very objective, and the politicians are putting their own election chances ahead of the long term welfare of the country. The Democrats are very reluctant to deal with the entitlement side of the issue, and the Republican are refusing to deal with the revenue side.

Anonymous

Iris, I’ve made my stance known. I don’t trust the Democrats to ever deal with the spending side and until they do (in law–not just promises) I would be very reluctant to even discuss tax increases. In fact the highest level of spending ever done in the USA was about 37 percent of GDP until Obama came in an upped that to 42%. At the same time the revenue has dropped for it’s highest level of 37% to about 30.5% due to the recession. The difference between spending and revenue shows up as a $1.65 trillion deficit. The democrats argue that to cut back on spending now jeapordizes the recovery. The Repubicans argue raising taxes in a recession goes against everything ANY economist says (even Keynesians).

We can’t continue to have this level of deficit spending and no economist (with the exception of Krugman) is calling for tax increases. So we have to cut spending first.

But here are some other things we can do to address revenue now: open up offshore drilling. Not ony will that provide high paying jobs for Americans, it will cut down on our need for foreign oil, decrease the trade imbalance, and increase revenues to the American government. The global warming carnard has be discredited and only the extremists hold on to it.

Here is a good explanation of why you can stop worrying and learn to love oil and natural gas.

It’s true that a lot of items in the budget have social implications, but the Planned Parenthood rider had little to do with the budget, and the GOP knew from the outset that the Democrats would never accept it. A total of $400 million was involved, but only 3% of Plant Parenthood’s expenses go to funding abortions. In other words, the GOP was willing to shut down the government for the sake of $12 million. That seems pretty extreme to me. Gov. Walker insisted on stripping the public employees of collective bargaining rights, even after they agreed to all the financial concessions, and in spite of the mass demonstrations were going on. The GOP insisted on extending the tax cuts for the wealthy at the cost of $100 billion per year, which shows that they weren’t very concerned with the deficit either. Would you like some more examples?

Anonymous

I think I fall somewhere between DeGette and Alan. Everything in the Budget is part of a social agenda, but it isn’t just the Republicans who are pushing an extreme social agenda. The Democrats fought tooth and nail to continuing funding NPR and Planned Parenthood. Now in an age of 1.5 trillion dollar deficits, cutting these are no brainers unless you have an extreme social agenda that includes funding abortion and paying part of the freight for a liberal upper middle class media outlet and you are willing to shut down the government to preserve it. In fact, the Republicans traded those issues for a bigger cut in the budget. This is kind of like Solomon proposing to cut the baby in half. It was the Republicans who gave up their “extreme agenda” item for bigger cuts. It was the Democrats who wouldn’t.

Cornell76

Planned Parenthood is a provider of low-cost healthcare for both men and women. Abortion is less than a third of their business. The only reason that the Republicans want to stop funding PP is because of the abortion services that they provide and they have completely ignored everything else that PP does for the communities that they are a part of.

Anonymous

Cornell, exactly what “low-cost healthcare” for both men and women does Planned Parenthood provide? I’m seriously asking the question.

Cornell76

Planned Parenthood offers general health exams, vaccinations, STD testing and treatment, birth control, and birthing classes (to name some). Some of their centers charge based on income and they receive some grants from the government to help cover the costs of care for those who are not able to pay at all.

Anonymous

It’s true that a lot of items in the budget have social implications, but the Planned Parenthood rider had little to do with the budget, and the GOP knew from the outset that the Democrats would never accept it. A total of $400 million was involved, but only 3% of Plant Parenthood’s expenses go to funding abortions. In other words, the GOP was willing to shut down the government for the sake of $12 million. That seems pretty extreme to me. Gov. Walker insisted on stripping the public employees of collective bargaining rights, even after they agreed to all the financial concessions, and in spite of the mass demonstrations were going on. The GOP insisted on extending the tax cuts for the wealthy at the cost of $100 billion per year, which shows that they weren’t very concerned with the deficit either. Would you like some more examples?

Anonymous

You can only have a fight over an ideological position if both sides have an ideological position.

Ideological intransigence

IN THE END, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA WAS THE ONE WHO REFUSED TO BLINK ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Another way of saying it is this: THE PRESIDENT WAS WILLING TO SHUT DOWN THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN SEE PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S FEDERAL FUNDING CUT.

According to press accounts leaked by Democratic aides, House Speaker John Boehner argued for the funding cut late into the evening. THE PRESIDENT ANSWERED, “NOPE, ZERO.” He then said, “John, this is it.” Mr. Boehner accepted the budget deal without that cut
.
A Republican aide confirmed more or less the same account to me. He said it was “chilling” to see how inflexible Mr. Obama was. You might call it ideological.

As for your comments about Planned Parenthood and the 3%; it is not the expenses that are 3%, but they claim only 3% of their services are abortion. In fact 36.7% of their income comes from abortions. You can read about it below. And it was Obama that was willing to shut down the government over it, obviously not the Republicans.

You know, right, that the only reason we saw such a decrease in violent crime in the United States over the past two decades was because of the legalization of abortion/Roe v. Wade?

Just throwing that out there. Whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, maybe we should look at Obama as a hero for his stance. After all, sticking to his guns will likely mean we’ll avoid returning to high crime rates in the future.

Anonymous

BTW, Iris, the tax cuts to the “wealthy” involved $700 billion over 10 years or $70 billion per year, not $100 billion. And Walker was correct to remove collective bargaining about benefits since that is where the real problem is with public employee unions and it is up to the states whether or not to allow collective bargaining. It wasn’t extreme at all.

Anonymous

Sorry about that, the true number is $ 70 billion, but that doesn’t change the basic nature of the situation. I don’t think that either side is being very objective, and the politicians are putting their own election chances ahead of the long term welfare of the country. The Democrats are very reluctant to deal with the entitlement side of the issue, and the Republican are refusing to deal with the revenue side.

Anonymous

Iris, I’ve made my stance known. I don’t trust the Democrats to ever deal with the spending side and until they do (in law–not just promises) I would be very reluctant to even discuss tax increases. In fact the highest level of spending ever done in the USA was about 37 percent of GDP until Obama came in an upped that to 42%. At the same time the revenue has dropped from it’s highest level of 37% to about 30.5% due to the recession. The difference between spending and revenue shows up as a $1.65 trillion deficit. The democrats argue that to cut back on spending now jeapordizes the recovery. The Repubicans argue raising taxes in a recession goes against everything ANY economist says (even Keynesians).

We can’t continue to have this level of deficit spending and no economist (with the exception of Krugman) is calling for tax increases. So we have to cut spending first.

But here are some other things we can do to address revenue now: open up offshore drilling. Not only will that provide high paying jobs for Americans, it will cut down on our need for foreign oil, decrease the trade imbalance, and increase revenues to the American government. The global warming carnard has be discredited and only the extremists hold on to it.

Here is a good explanation of why you can stop worrying and learn to love oil and natural gas.

Um, when is balancing the budget a “social” agenda at all? The social agenda deals with the lives of people, like education and civil rights. The right wants to defund critical resources for women’s health (and the health of the general population) and the education of children. All while leaving untouched the tax rates of the wealthiest people and corporations (GE paying NO taxes last year, anyone?). THAT’S an extreme social agenda.

Anonymous

TK, it seems to me that you agree the budget is a social agenda. We disagree on which side is pushing the extreme agenda. You call it “critical resources for women’s health (abortions). You also put education in there. But we have doubled (in constant dollars) the amount per student we are paying for our childrens’ education and have no appreciable increase in results. After 30 years, perhaps it is time to try something different (vouchers anyone?).

Tkusterb

Um, when is balancing the budget a “social” agenda at all? The social agenda deals with the lives of people, like education and civil rights. The right wants to defund critical resources for women’s health (and the health of the general population) and the education of children. All while leaving untouched the tax rates of the wealthiest people and corporations (GE paying NO taxes last year, anyone?). THAT’S an extreme social agenda.

Anonymous

TK, it seems to me that you agree the budget is a social agenda. We disagree on which side is pushing the extreme agenda. You call it “critical resources for women’s health (abortions). You also put education in there. But we have doubled (in constant dollars) the amount per student we are paying for our childrens’ education and have no appreciable increase in results. After 30 years, perhaps it is time to try something different (vouchers anyone?).

LoverOfFreedom

We the people do not wish to fund the Planned Parenthood abortion mills. The voters spoke in 2010. No more taxpayer funding of abortion. Planned Parenthood does not advance “women’s health.” It destroys it through abortions that cause breast cancer and by supporting abuse of minors. If DeGette did not receive so much campaign money from Planned Parenthood, perhaps she would recognize that the organization was founded to further Margaret Sanger’s racist eugenics policies. The most dangerous place for a black child in America is in the womb.

My copy of the Constitution does not reference education as a duty of the federal government. Washington has no business telling boards of education how to run their schools. The Department of Education is unconstitutional.

Low taxes mean more jobs. Why don’t the liberals understand that? Increasing taxes on “the wealthiest people and corporations” will turn the U.S. into a socialist state and increase unemployment in the private sector.

But maybe that’s what the Democrats want.

Anonymous

Cornell, exactly what “low-cost healthcare” for both men and women does Planned Parenthood provide? I’m seriously asking the question.

rspencer

The budget is a social agenda issue when Republicans propose budget cuts that address on 12% of the overall budget and the programs being cut disproportionately affect the lower and middle class. Tea partiers want to act like their agenda is strictly an economic one, but the recent budget debate has revealed their true colors.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.